,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Clayton didn't say that "Ether is no longer a security." He said he agreed with Hinman's *explanation* of when a token is no longer a security.
2/ Hinman can say stuff like that but for the Chairman to say it in a letter to Congress is another matter entirely. It would be construed as binding, and the SEC isn't trying to have that.
3/ Okay but is Ether a security? No, I don't think it is.
4/ Recall that when Hinman articulated his Hinman Test, he took the core principle of the SAFT framework (when have the "efforts of others ceased") and added a bunch of gloss to it.
5/ In his letter, though, Clayton relies on one example - whether the "essential technical and managerial efforts of others" have ceased. Still seems to be the strongest ground for analysis in my mind.
6/ Did Clayton endorse the SAFT framework? lolno. Nor did he say that Ether is not a security. Words have meaning, though, and so does diction. It's tough to ignore these letters and everything that goes into them. Best predictive value we have, for now.
Here read it your own self: coincenter.org/link/sec-chair…
